People v. McNeil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McNeil

255 A.D.2d 605, 682 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12883

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. McNeil. Read the opinion of the Court — 268 A.D.2d 611 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 30, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered September 13, 1995, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel by reason of the court’s refusal to grant his request for a change of assigned counsel at the suppession hearing. It is well settled that court-appointed counsel will not be removed except for good cause shown (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 US 1178). The defendant’s reasons for his dissatisfaction with his court-appointed attorney did not consitute a showing of good cause (see, People v Sawyer, supra; People v Outlaw, 184 AD2d 665).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered September 13, 1995, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel by reason of the court’s refusal to grant his request for a change of assigned counsel at the suppession hearing. It is well settled that court-appointed counsel will not be removed except for good cause shown (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 US 1178). The defendant’s reasons for his dissatisfaction with his court-appointed attorney did not consitute a showing of good cause (see, People v Sawyer, supra; People v Outlaw, 184 AD2d 665).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

People v. McNeil, 255 A.D.2d 605, 682 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 605 (People v. McNeil) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related